Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2023

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am kind of curious. This is basically a bill to address affordability in Canada.

For young families that have a mortgage right now that is coming up for renewal in the next month, and it is going to from 2% to 8%, what is in here that is going to help? What is in any type of Liberal legislation at this point in time that is actually going to help that family renew that mortgage, take the hit on the increase of the mortgage payment, and be able to heat their homes and put food on the table?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-56 has a fairly narrow focus, but that is why we were hoping, not only through the fall economic statement but in the budget next year, to start to see measures that would address this.

I will remind the member that we got to the rates we are at today precisely because of the corporate profits that have been driving inflation. If Canadians want to understand why rates are so high, it is because we are trying to cool down a market that was caused by corporate greed. It was caused by oil and gas companies having net profits go up by over 1,000% in three years. It was caused by grocery CEOs digging in their greedy hands, off the backs of working families.

If we want to truly calm inflation down, we have to stop the policies that are championed by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. We need to swing the pendulum back in favour of working families, and stop the corporate deference that both of these parties love to champion whenever they are in government.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc and the NDP agree on a number of points, including that the bill does not go far enough, but there are some good things in it.

I will still come back to my question. Why is the government using a closure motion, never mind a super closure motion?

I am well aware that there is filibustering. Filibustering harms everything. It is detrimental to our work, to what we want to achieve. Still, it seems to me that a super closure motion should be used as a last resort.

Does my colleague not get the impression that the cure is worse than the disease in this case?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, time is of the essence right now.

These are powers, legislative fixes that the Competition Bureau was asking for months ago. I cannot control when the government decides to schedule Bill C-56 for debate. However, I do know that many members in this place have already had the opportunity to give their thoughts at second reading.

This is a vote on the principle of the bill, and I think everyone agrees on the principle, getting the GST off new rental housing construction and making sure the Competition Bureau has the powers to go after that corporate stranglehold that we have in so many critical sectors. It is something that we should be voting on.

I am proud that through Motion 30, we have taken the work that was put in the bill by the member for Burnaby South, and we are going to add those provisions to Bill C-56. I see this as an opportunity where the NDP has rolled up our sleeves, has put our heads down and are getting to work to make sure the changes are happening in this place, unlike my Conservative colleagues.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has spoken very eloquently about the Liberals inaction up until the time that the NDP pushed them to actually do the right thing.

I want to ask the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who lived through the dismal nine years, the dark years of the Harper regime, where housing prices doubled and 800,000 affordable housing units, thousands in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, were ripped away from the hands of the families that actually needed access to that affordable housing. Conservatives find that funny, the devastation that they reaped, including increasing the age of retirement, forcing seniors to work longer and harder.

Could my hon. colleague talk about the devastating impacts on Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and, of course, across Vancouver Island?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will tell my colleague how bad it was. It was so bad that the Conservatives fell to third place in the 2015 election. My riding is not known to be a Liberal stronghold, but they actually got second place because of how bad the Conservative government was.

Do members know that the current leader of the Conservative Party really motivated me to run for office because he was Harper's spokesperson. He was there front and centre, putting in the policies that wreaked such havoc in my community, and I am glad to say that we are finally in a place, in a minority Parliament, where I have the opportunity, as my community's representative, to bring in some concrete fixes.

We are only just getting started. We have a lot more to do, but I am glad to serve with a 25-member caucus that, every single day, is coming to this place to make the lives of Canadians better from coast to coast to coast.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to join the debate. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member of Parliament for Prince Albert.

Bill C-56 is an interesting bill, and I must give the Liberal government some credit for taking a page directly from the leader of the official opposition's affordability plan and proposing to remove the GST from purpose-built rental housing. This is something that Conservatives support.

I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see the Liberal government admit that removing a tax, in this case, the GST, is a good way to increase affordability, much as I was shocked to see the Liberal government admit that removing its carbon tax on home heating oil is also a good way to increase affordability. If only it would remove its carbon tax on propane and natural gas to increase affordability for all Canadians and not just those in certain regions of the country.

Back to the bill, I also support the proposed amendments to the Competition Act, just as I supported my colleague from Bay of Quinte when he introduced his Bill C‑339.

It is refreshing to see a Liberal government adopt Conservative solutions. I even have to give the Prime Minister a little credit. Removing the tax on goods and services relating to the construction of rental housing means that builders and developers will save money. It means that less money will end up here in Ottawa. We all know how much this Prime Minister likes spending other people's money. Despite reduced revenue, our perennially spendy Prime Minister did not label this an austerity bill—not yet, anyway. Maybe he will change his mind when he reads the bill and realizes he is endorsing Conservative ideas.

Regardless, the Prime Minister has demonstrated remarkable restraint by introducing a bill that will reduce Ottawa's revenue and not calling it an austerity measure.

I pause for a moment, though, to ask this place a question. If the Liberal government is capable of understanding that removing the GST from rental housing increases affordability and that removing the carbon tax from home heating oil also increases affordability, why does it still refuse to remove the carbon tax from natural gas and propane to increase affordability? Do Canadian families who heat their homes with natural gas and propane and who cannot pay their bills not matter?

I have heard the Liberal excuses around this. Home heating oil is expensive and the carbon tax makes it more expensive, so that is why they are giving them a carbon tax break, but the same is also true for those who heat with natural gas and propane. Basically, this government is telling them that they do not matter. This is a Prime Minister who once said, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, but that is no longer true if one heats one's home with natural gas or propane. Sure, one might be on the verge of bankruptcy or hitting the food bank every day, but this Liberal government just does not care.

I know some members would say that I am getting a bit off track, that we should be debating what is in this bill. That is my point. The things in this bill would help, but the things we could do to most help Canadians right now, such as removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels, we are not doing solely because the government is punitive.

This morning, we read about the Liberals' so-called affordability retreat, where taxpayers got stuck with a bill for $160,000, including rooms that cost anywhere from $1,200 to $3,200 apiece. The very Liberals who stayed in those rooms have the audacity to tell those who can no longer afford to heat their home at the end of the month that they will get no help. Worse, their carbon tax bill will actually be quadrupled. I would simply ask the obvious: Why not do more?

Why not offer Canadians who heat their homes with natural gas and propane the same carbon tax relief as those who heat their homes with home heating oil? Why does this Prime Minister always have to divide Canadians? This time, he is dividing them based on their heating fuel. Canadians have had enough of this.

Every poll sends the message loud and clear about where the Liberals stand, yet the Liberal government ignores that message. To what end? I know there are good people on the government side, but the arrogance of the Prime Minister and his powerful group of unelected insiders is hurting many Canadians.

Yes, the proposals in this bill will help. It is a start, but we seriously need to do more. That is why I talked about doing more. That is why the leader of the official opposition listens to Canadians every day. They are asking us to do more. Polls show they want relief from the carbon tax on their home heating bills.

Farmers want and need a break as well. Here in Canada, we introduced something called “marked gas”. The idea was that farmers could buy gasoline and diesel at lower costs, without additional taxes, because all of our predecessors from all political parties recognized that keeping farmers' costs low was in the public interest. Now the Liberal government is literally driving up the costs for farmers for ideological reasons.

I will share a story of a local small business owner. This small business owner is a value-added food processor. It is very important to this small business owner that, when his goods arrive at local grocery stores, they proudly say that they are 100% Canadian. Here is the thing: When he gets his raw goods, they come from Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and when he has them shipped out via transport truck, he now pays a carbon tax surcharge on the bill.

He must raise his prices to offset the extra carbon tax that he pays. If he were to get the same raw goods out of the United States or overseas, he would not have that same large carbon tax surcharge from goods being shipped across Canada. He might be at that point where the only way he can lower his prices and remain competitive would be to switch because many of his competitors in the same grocery stores cannot say that they are also made in Canada. They are made in other jurisdictions where there is no carbon tax. When times are tough, as they are right now, fewer people can afford to pay extra for goods solely because they are made here in Canada.

I hope the government realizes the long-term structural damage its carbon tax is creating. It would be a different story if our largest trading partners had the same carbon tax and it was a level playing field. The Liberals like to say that they are taking a leadership role with the carbon tax. However, when no one else is following, they are not leading the way.

Some may think that I was not objective in this debate, but when I go home and my constituents ask me what we are doing in Ottawa to make life more affordable for them, I would like to have more to offer than simply saying that I supported this bill. At least I can tell that small business owner and others like him that I shared their stories.

Unfortunately, however, we have a Prime Minister and a Prime Minister's Office who do not care about any of them, unless they use home heating oil, of course.

That said, yes, I will support this bill and I will continue to ask this Liberal government to adopt and better support our Conservative ideas. Let us put all home heating fuels on a level playing field and suspend the carbon tax.

Let us ensure that the carbon tax on farming is gone. Let us all read the Scotiabank report that tells of how government spending at all levels has created over 40% of the rise in basis points from the Bank of Canada. It is not austerity to think like a taxpayer and deliver value for money. What a concept. It is not an app that costs over $54 million or funding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. How about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which does not deliver any infrastructure?

Literally every day, we read about a new spending scandal from the Liberal government and appointed insiders funnelling money to their own companies. How could someone not know that was wrong and unacceptable? How are people such as Laith Marouf on the government contract list? Why is there never any ministerial accountability?

Instead of fiscal waste, we should be doing more with what is here. I urge all members of the House of Commons to consider doing more and adopting our Conservative ideas to provide Canadians a carbon tax break on home heating, and let us have a carbon tax carve-out for our farmers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to questions and comments, I would like to say to the member that his French is really improving. I would like to thank him for his efforts.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was not a lot in that on the bill in front of us on the Competition Act or removing GST from purpose-built rentals, but I will take the member up on his reference to plagiarism. We have certainly witnessed a lot of political plagiarism over the last several weeks. The Leader of the Opposition has almost taken every page out of Donald Trump's political playbook in threatening to defund the media. He has talked about firing people with our own Canadian version of The Apprentice. Of course, he has also taken on Mike Harris's common-sense revolution tag.

What is the Leader of the Opposition's fascination with political plagiarism? Does he have any original ideas of his own? If he does, when will we hear them?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask for your patience with me because I am going to describe that particular question, not the questioner but the question, as political loser talk. If he wants to come to this place to talk about affordability, with doing things like increasing competition, which the member for Bay of Quinte originally proposed and is now incorporated in this bill, we could have that discussion.

Instead, he wants to trash-talk my leader. I am going to be holding the Prime Minister to account for the actions of his government. I am going to give some credit where it is due when he takes good ideas, such as tax cuts and increased competition, from Conservative benches and incorporates them into bills. I will give Liberals credit when they do that, but when they trash-talk, I am going to call them out. That member is guilty of trash talk and should be fined by the court of public opinion in his constituency.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members to make sure their questions, comments and speeches are focused on the business before the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. More than that, I want to congratulate him on his French. I think he delivered about half of his speech in French, which is amazing. Seriously, kudos to him, and I am very happy to hear French in the House.

At its press conference in Ottawa today, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that, to build the millions of housing units we need, they would require $600 billion in infrastructure such as transportation, roads, public transit and sewers. I would just like to know what a future Conservative government—not that we want one—would say to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities about that.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is one hundred per cent right. We are going through a housing crisis, and it is because municipal gatekeepers, right across the country, have held tight to old ideas such as zoning that basically keeps municipalities as they are. As our immigration grows, and as our population grows, we see there are just not enough places for everyone.

In Bill C-56, the government's solution is a Conservative one, and it is to take the GST off and create more demand for something by lowering the cost of it. However, the problem is the speNDP-Liberal government's continued obsession with spending at any cost, any time, anywhere and any place, and we end up seeing much higher inflation.

As I said in my speech, the Scotiabank report said that up to 40% of the basis points of the Bank of Canada have gone up. We will not see significant market investments or significant government investments go forward unless we have lower interest rates. It is the economics that are a pressure here. Maybe Bill C-56 would allow some Venn diagram where everything falls into place of some projects now being viable, but I am already seeing in my area of the Okanagan projects dropping. We are seeing, in the Statistics Canada numbers, a drop in permits. That is inevitable until the economy turns around, and it will not do that if the government keeps spending like there is no tomorrow.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to question my friend from British Columbia on his last point because he was referencing the Scotiabank number. Just so everyone understands, could he confirm that that number also includes all of the spending by Canada's provincial governments and that a great amount of it was approved spending during the pandemic, which, if I recall correctly, many Conservatives also supported to keep businesses afloat so people could continue working. Would he be able to confirm those figures?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I actually wrote in my MP report to my constituents this week exactly that: All levels of government have been overspending.

However, let us not forget what I called the Prime Minister earlier this week: “our deficit-maker-in-chief”. No one has the fiscal power like the current federal government. No one has the tax power like the current federal government. What were the members of the government doing this week? Instead of actually trying to show some leadership and actually reducing, they have been going through an NDP wish list, which is one of the reasons we keep referring to the fact that after eight long years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is just not worth the cost. It is Canadians who are paying that bill, and they will keep paying that bill until they kick the current government out.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, what a great presentation that was from my colleague from of British Columbia. The common-sense ideas that he presented just reflect the common sense of a young Conservative Party that is ready to take over the reins here in Canada and bring about some new ideas to help Canadians as it progresses, goes forward and brings back the Canadian dream of home ownership.

When I first read Bill C-56, I thought that it was not that bad and that there were some things in it that looked pretty good. Then I remembered: I know why they look good; it is because they are actually Conservative ideas. They are actually things the Conservatives talked about six years ago, and I am glad the Liberals copied them. I am very flattered they copied our ideas. That is great.

Then I looked at it and thought, “Wait a minute, the bill is regarding GST on rental properties.” If we are really looking at this and at affordability across Canada, we are dealing with such a small part of where there are affordability problems. Let us take, for example, the young family who owns a house. Let us say they have a mortgage of $250,000. They bought their house three or four years ago. The mortgage is coming up for renewal now, and they are going from a 1.9% or 2.5% interest rate to roughly an 8.5% or 8.7% interest rate. Their monthly mortgage payment is going from $1,200 a month up to $1,800 or $1,900 a month. They have to find another $700 a month, so that is $8,400 a year of after-tax dollars just to pay the interest increase. That is an affordability problem. Is there anything in the bill that would address that? No, there is not. Is there anything in the Liberals' ideas they talked about yesterday, moving forward, that would address helping those people out? Have there been any ideas to work with the banks to say they could extend things out? Have there been any ideas to work with institutions to say that we could actually help people manoeuvre so they could actually afford to stay in their house?

I can see why the Liberals talked only about rental properties in this piece of legislation, because what will happen is that people are going to give up their house because they cannot afford it, and they are going to have to have a place to rent. Let us look at the legislation again. Okay, we would build lots of apartments. When would they be done? Would it be two years or three years from now? People lose their house next month, and they have to wait three years for an apartment? Where do they go? What do they do?

There has been no imagination in the government. The Liberals are out of ideas. They are old and tired, and they have no concept of what is actually going on in this country. They have done nothing to work with the municipalities and the provinces to ask how they can make things more affordable and whether there are things they can do together and leverage among themselves to make life easier for Canadians. There is nothing. We have a few examples where maybe they worked with one city here and one city there, but generally, across Canada, have they worked with anybody? No, they have not. They have picked a targeted approach based on political will and political expedience.

We saw it with home heating when the Liberals removed the GST on oil. Did they apply that to propane? Did they apply it to natural gas? Did they apply it to wood or coal? I come from Saskatchewan. We still use coal; that is way worse than diesel. We still use wood; that is probably still worse than diesel. Was there any relief for that? No, there was not. We use propane and natural gas, which are better than diesel, but the cost has gone up so much because of the carbon tax that it is really hurting. People are saying to us all the time, “I cannot pay my bills.” They are going into winter now and are asking what they will do. They are saying, “My mortgage is going to go up. My heating is now going up. My property tax is going up. What do I do?” What does the government say to them? It says crickets. It tells them to pay it, and if their wallet is empty, to borrow more money at a higher interest rate and pay it. Is there any relief there? No, there is not. Has there been any compassion shown? No, there has not.

That is the reality of what the government has done, and do members know why? The government is tired. It is out of ideas. It has no imagination. It does not understand economics. The reality is that this is very true, because if the Liberals understood economics, they would have realized five years ago, when they started borrowing money like drunken sailors, that it was not a good idea. When they started putting money into things that did not have any type of return on GDP or efficiencies, that was a bad idea.

When we look at things now, we have to pay those interest rates. It is a tremendous amount of interest we are now paying on our debt. It is more than what we pay in health care. I was around before, when people had to wait two years to get surgery. My mother had cancer. She had to wait before she could get diagnosed, because those were the days when we were paying a higher amount in interest than we were paying for health care. It took a Liberal government, in co-operation with a Conservative government and the Reform Party in opposition, to get that tackled and under control.

Did we learn from history? No, we did not. What did the Prime Minister do? He started borrowing, not just a small amount like he promised in 2015, not just $10 billion, but $40 billion, $60 billion and $100 billion. The numbers are staggering, and now, we cannot get that back. How do we get back to a balanced budget? It is going to take a tremendous amount of effort.

Not only did we spend more, but we also brought in legislation that starves businesses. We brought in legislation that kicks people out of Canada so they invest everywhere else. We kept our natural resources in the ground. We did not defend our forestry sector when it was unfairly hit with tariffs out of the U.S. What has the government done? It has done nothing. It has shown no imagination. When we talk to it about this, it blames everybody else.

Affordability is the basis of what is going on here. Let us look at things in a more macro and holistic sense. Let us break it down to a family that buys groceries. Groceries are more expensive. The inflation rate for groceries is tremendous. There is the war in Ukraine and a variety of things that have brought commodity prices up through the roof, no question about it, but there are things the government could do to alleviate some of the pain.

I have no issues with change to the Competition Bureau. I have a few concerns, but no issues. Again, when would we get the results from the changes? Would they help us next week or next month, or a year, two years or 10 years from now? There are no deadlines. There are no time frames for allowing us to see any type of reduction in prices based on the changes. There is nothing there that would immediately help the family that needs the help today, so has the government done anything on affordability in the legislation? No, it has not. It has laid out some good targets to move forward in the future, four years or five years down the road when it is no longer in government, but what has it done today? What it has done is spend more money on things Canada cannot afford. It has put money into programs that do not help Canadians at this point in time. It has taken money out of their pockets that they need in their pockets.

This is why we asked the government to just freeze the GST. Never mind the quadrupling, even just freezing it would alone at least help Canadians. If the government reduced it, it would show compassion. If it reduced it for all Canadians, it would show that it genuinely cared about this country and did not pick favourites on one side or the other based on political expediency. If you showed some consistency, we would be in better shape and in a better position in this Parliament, but you have not; you have divided Canadians by region, by different sectors—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that he is to address all questions and comments through the chair.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are being divided, and when they are hurting, they get divided even more. When one starts picking winners and losers, it gets even worse.

The government just spent $30 billion on two companies for electric batteries. It is probably $35 billion from what we are hearing now. It does not mean we should or should not do it, but that is $30 billion. Let us make sure that investment is going to happen, that it is done in such a way that Canadians are going to benefit from it. We do not know, as we cannot see the agreement. Canadians do not know what is in it. It is hidden. Why is it hidden? Maybe there is a reason to have foreign jobs. Maybe they are training the trainer and things like that; I could live with that, but I do not know. The government should show the agreement to us and to Canadians so they understand. It has spent a lot of money at a time when Canadians do not have a lot of money. It has tried to build the next sector of industry with huge government subsidization. Did it try to create a competitive environment here in Canada so businesses want to be here? Did it want to take advantage of the natural advantages we have in Canada: our diverse population, our multiple languages and the abilities we have? Those are the things it has to look at.

If we look at the Canadian GDP per person, since 2017, it stagnated and now it has dropped. Basically, our standard of living compared to that in other parts of the world is going down. When we compare it to that of the U.S., ours has dropped 2.5%, and the Americans' has been rising 5.5% this last year. If we look at the graphs, theirs is going up and ours is going sideways and down. The government has to change that. If it continues, our families are going to get into worse problems.

Canada is at a crossroads right now. Canadians are hurting. They are in pain. The government has done nothing to relieve that pain and has shown no compassion or empathy in regard to that.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite needs a time machine, because if he goes back to the period from 2010 to 2015, he will know that the Harper Conservative government ran five straight deficits, with $55 billion in deficits in 2010 to 2011 alone. Do people know what we got with that? We got the exact same plan. Every single time the Conservatives come into power, it is like a game plan that is always put in place. They make massive cuts, which hurts people. They even raised the age of retirement. With a Conservative government, we get cuts and deficits, and people get hurt.

To the member, is it true or not that the Harper government, over a five-year period from 2010 to 2015, ran deficits of almost $100 billion, yes or no?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, yes, we ran deficits, and I know why. It is because we were in the greatest global meltdown of our banks that Canada and the world had ever seen. Where did that money go? I can tell the House where it went in my riding. It went to lift stations, to water treatment plants and to sewer lines. It went to things that Canadians actually needed. It was spent to actually create jobs and employment. It was returned to the economy and came back in taxes. That is where that money went.

Tell me where the Liberal government's money went. Where did the billions of dollars go? I do not know. We got the ArriveCAN app; maybe some of it went there. Where else did it go? It is like the $40 million; nobody knows.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, the federal housing advocate, which is a body tasked by the federal government with ensuring that the right to housing is respected in this country, issued a report a few weeks ago stating that Canada will need a staggering 9 million housing units and 3.3 million social housing units in the next 10 years.

I want to know how many social housing units would be built by a Conservative government, not that we want one.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, actually, it is not up to government to build houses. It is up to the marketplace to build houses. It is up to government to actually set the stage, to put the environment in place so houses get built. It is up to government to make sure the platform is there so developers and homeowners who want to build a new house can actually do that. What have we done here? We have taxed them. We have taken away all of their disposable income. We have made it tough to actually even afford groceries, so how are they supposed to build a house? Talking about revenue properties and social housing, there is a role for government in social housing; there is no question about that for municipal, federal and provincial governments. Let us have a proper game plan to see that happen.

Do members know what? It is pretty tough when the cupboard is bare because the money was spent on things we cannot find.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am at a loss in terms of the ridiculousness of the answer to the previous question, saying that the government has no place in housing. That is why we are in this crisis in the first place. It is because government has stepped away from the business of building houses and has left it to the market when, ultimately, housing is a human right. We cannot live without it, and we therefore expect that a government has to take it into account.

I have heard from home builders. They are doing wonderful things in our community, but they do not do it out of the goodness of their heart. They do it for a profit, and that cannot continue when people are left homeless and dying on our streets as winter comes forward.

How can the member possibly defend his position?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the NDP have a philosophy that they should own and be involved in everything. They think that the government can actually do things better than the marketplace; that is their philosophy. The reality is that we have seen that when the government is involved in things—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!